On the
Temple is the second of Bede's exegetical treatises on the sacred
buildings of the Hebrews that are described in the Old Testament.1 The first of these, On the Tabernacle, has
already been translated with an introduction by Arthur G. Holder (Church
Divinity School of the Pacific), and included in this same series, as
volume 18 (1994).2 The present volume
includes the translation of Bede's work on the Temple as described in III
(I) Kings 5:1-7:51 by Sean Connolly, currently teaching palaeography,
Greek, and Medieval Latin in the Department of English at University
College Cork, together with an introduction by Jennifer O'Reilly, Head of
Medieval History at University College Cork.

Since Holder (On
the Tabernacle, xviiff.) and Brown in his review have discussed Bede's
exegetical method in a clear and detailed fashion, I shall concentrate my
review on the translation of the text, with a few comments on the
introduction.

Connolly began his translation as an aid to the
students in a Latin course on Bede for graduate students in Medieval
History. Since he found that many students have little grasp of the
principles of Latin, he decided on presenting a translation that is as
close to Bede as is possible in English. He admits that the structure of
Bede's sentences (which in their style reflect his complicated thought)
creates the sort of lengthy English statement that is unusual in our
current idiom. Still, he preferred to be faithful to the text rather than
attempt a smooth English version. He adduces two reasons for avoiding a
paraphrase: first, he wanted the Latinless reader to get something of a
feel for Bede's way of thinking and the way he expresses this; second, he
wanted the medieval history student with some, though inadequate, Latin,
to be able to follow the original (much in the way the Loeb translators
currently do).

Presenting the architectural terms caused Connolly a
different set of problems. Here the differences in the Hebrew and
Septuagint texts that lie behind the Latin translations of Bede's terms
required choosing English equivalents which may not either reflect the
actual structures described or Bede's sense of them. In addition, in
Chapter 17.2 Bede discusses a problematic passage from Cassiodorus'
Psalm Commentary 86.37-44, in which the latter suggests that he is
depending on a passage in Josephus' Jewish Antiquities.3 Connolly makes specific mention of the
difficulties involved in translating the architectural term
porticus, which he concludes by deciding for a rendering of
"portico" or "colonnade," depending on the context. Given this care in
translation of the terms, it is regrettable that no modern reconstruction
of the Temple is offered as a reader's aid, such as appears in The
Jerome Biblical Commentary (1968), 715.

The translation is
based on D. Hurst's 1969 text (CCSL 119A.143- 234).4 Connolly has offered the reader useful aids in his
arrangement of the text, which appears in Hurst's edition in a long,
unbroken series of paragraphs. He has placed the "Capitula" (Hurst 146) at
the head of the units of text to which the chapter headings belong. In
addition, he has numbered each of the paragraphs under these headings,
placing the Hurst page numbers in the margin as well. This makes the text
much easier to follow and to refer to. The translations of Scripture are
always problematic, and Connolly indicates that he has chosen to translate
the Vulgate, adapting the wording when Bede sometimes uses other Latin
versions. Unfortunately, already in the paragraph of the prologue, it is
clear that the translator is not following this rule. In his citation from
Romans 15:4 he has taken over the translation from the RSV (in which
appear the clause "in former days" and the translations of
patientiam and consolationem as "steadfastness" and
"encouragement"). This is particularly unfortunate because in Bede's gloss
on this passage that immediately follows, the translator has correctly
rendered the two words as "patience" and "consolation."5

In general, the translation is excellent
and does justice to the complicated style of Bede's exegesis. An example
of the translation and the problems associated with such renderings can be
offered in a sentence from the opening chapter of the work (1.2 in
Connolly's numbering). Bede is discussing how the meaning of the
Tabernacle and the Temple differ. "...[T]he former can be taken to
represent the toil and exile of the present Church, the latter the rest
and happiness of the future Church" (6). Bede continues, developing this
theme in greater detail:

At all events
because the former was made by the children of
Israel alone, the latter by proselytes also and by gentiles, the former
can be taken chiefly as a symbolic expression for the Fathers of the Old
Testament and the ancient people of God, the latter for the Church
assembled from the gentiles, although the building of both houses,7, when it has been discussed in greater detail in
the spiritual sense, can be shown in many ways to suggest symbolically
both the daily labours of the present Church and the everlasting rewards
and joys in the future and the salvation of all nations in Christ.
(Connolly, 148)8

Leaving
aside the omission of the words "regni caelestis et electionem primae de
Israhel ecclesiae," which partially destroys Bede's parallels, the
translation is accurate enough, but certainly requires, as the translator
suggests in his preface, several readings to disentangle the meaning.
Bede's emphasis on figural meanings (which the translator renders as
"symbolic") is lost because the last word of his sentence figuris
is tucked away as an adverb several lines too soon. Yet for those with
some sense of the Latin the translation offers a way through the thickets
of Bede's complicated structure. It is these readers who will most benefit
from this translation. For others, it will always prove a useful aid for
reference to Bede's exegesis of particular passages.9 Most of the notes are to Scriptural references or
to cross-references, but the few lengthy notes are sometimes on topics
related to Bede's discussion, but not entirely relevant to it.

Jennifer O'Reilly's introduction is a full and informative essay
that discusses the content of the treatise as well as its place in the
political and intellectual life of the British Church in the early eighth
century. She investigates in considerable detail the background of the
work in earlier exegesis and the importance of the work in the context of
Bede's pastoral program. As she so well puts it (xviii), "the theme of the
Temple was peculiarly suited to Bede's well-known objective of supplying
teaching materials for the purposes of monastic formation and the
education of spiritual teachers...." She begins her analysis with a
discussion of the Tabernacle as the house of God in the earlier
dispensation, then turns to the construction of the Temple by Solomon and
how it relates to the new dispensation and the future life, to the person
of Christ, and to the new Temple, which is the body of Christ, the Church
itself.

She then considers how the theme of the Temple was
developed in the earlier patristic tradition, discussing in turn Origen,
Ambrose, Augustine, and in particular, Gregory the Great, whose works
served as models not so much for this particular treatise, as for Bede's
exegetical methods. Indeed, as she notes earlier, Bede's treatise is in
fact the first full exegetical commentary on the passage in Kings that has
come down to us (xvii f.). Indeed, Bede's work in general is seen yet
again as the conclusion and culmination of the patristic tradition.

She then asks what were Bede's objectives and approach in this
work. In On the Temple Bede presents a systematic figural analysis
of the description of the Temple in III (I) Kings, similar in treatment
and structure to his work On the Tabernacle. Most important was
Bede's careful distinction between the Tabernacle in the Wilderness and
the Temple of Solomon. In the course of his discussion Bede remains fully
conscious of the seven years involved in the building and dedication of
the Temple, giving to his description a historical sense embedded in the
architectural significance of the holy shrine and its furnishings.

The prologue to the work, dedicated to Acca, abbot and bishop of
Hexham (709-731), directs the reader to the kind of audience that Bede
wanted for his treatise. Acca was a member of the educated Anglo-Saxon
clergy who lived both the contemplative and active life so central to the
mission of the English church. Bede is also the historian of this church,
and O'Reilly situates the exegetical work of Bede within the framework of
English ecclesiastical history. At the same time, Bede is aware of the
great flowering of art and architecture in his contemporary world, and
these developments are presented in the conclusion to O'Reilly's fine
essay.

There is a brief appendix to her essay which deals, on the
basis of a select bibliography, with the illustrations of the Tabernacle
and of Ezra in the Codex Amiatinus. O'Reilly will be delivering one of the
three papers on the Codex Amiatinus at the conference "The Golden Age of
Northumbria" (Newcastle, July 22-26, 1996), and one may expect that she
will offer a more detailed discussion than the brief overview she presents
here.10 The problems of the Codex Amiatinus,
its text and its illustrations, have been the subject of much work in
recent years. Much of it has suffered from the difficulties inherent in
many studies of the early Middle Ages. The medieval historians and the
students of late Latin culture (like myself) lack the training to deal
with the art-historical side of such investigations, and the art
historians lack sufficient understanding of the literary and historical
issues involved.11

Both Connolly's
translation of this difficult text and O'Reilly's wide-ranging discussion
of the work will be welcome to all who work in the literature and history
of the early Middle Ages. I would like to echo George Hardin Brown's
concluding words in his BMR review of Arthur Holder's book, that the
editors and the press who have made these major texts available to
scholars and students also deserve our praise.

ADDENDUM --
The
following note to the author of the review from Professor George Hardin
Brown is added at the reviewer's request:

The only item I would
also like to have seen you correct is the oddity in 16.3 (pp. 58-59),
where Connolly unaccountably translated "byssus" (i.e., "flax," or
"linen") as "silk," which makes nonsense of Bede's text: "Silk which is
produced from a seed which springs green from the earth...." Amalarius,
Liber officialis, III.4.1-3, quotes Bede on this and remarks, "In
significatione non discrepat nostrum linum, quo nostri cantores
vestiuntur, a bysso."

NOTES

[1]
Bede, On the Temple 2.24.4 (p. 115 Connolly): "...in the books
we have written on the construction of the tabernacle...."

[2] An important and thorough review of Holder's book,
written by George Hardin Brown, appeared as BMR 95.2.20. Trent Foley
(Davidson) and Holder are also preparing a third volume of six of Bede's
shorter exegetical writings for TTH, including In libros Regum
quaestiones xxx (CPL 1347), in which Bede discusses the Temple at
Jerusalem.

[3] For a full discussion of the passage
in Cassiodorus, see my article, "Pandectes, Pandecta, and the Cassiodorian
Commentary on the Psalms," Revue Benedictine 90 (1980): 290-300.

[4] Connolly spends a long footnote (9, fn. 9) on
what is clearly an error in Hurst's text. The result probably (as so often
in CCSL texts) of an over-zealous copy editor who changed the MS reading
sabbatismum (o) to a regular Latin superlative sabbatissimum
(o) (153.247, 167.809 Hurst). A quick check of Giles' original edition
(8.271, 8.286) or the reprint in PL (91.743B, 754D) would have revealed
this.

[5] Indeed, a cursory search of the Scriptural
passages translated throughout shows that they are adaptations of the RSV
(or NRSV translation) rather than translations of Bede's text.

[6] In order to simplify the understanding of this passage,
I have used Giles' punctuation (265), but not his text. Hurst is chary of
punctuation, offering only commas after facta est and
exprimi and making the whole text one sentence.

[8] Jennifer O'Reilly in her introduction
(xxi) properly notes that "[t]he idea that the Church has already, since
the Incarnation and Passion of Christ, spiritually replaced the Tabernacle
and Temple on earth, but is itself incomplete, awaiting its future
fulfilment in heaven whose eternal joys can only be glimpsed and desired
by the faithful still on earth is a fundamental assumption underlying
Bede's De templo."

[9] I have discovered a
few other abbreviations or missing clauses in the translation; none of
them is of particular moment. At 4.6 (Connolly, 17), the fact that Paros
is one of the Cyclades is dropped. Neither Hurst nor Connolly indicates
where Bede obtained this antiquarian information. It derives, in the last
analysis, from Isidore, Etym. 14.6.29. In the same paragraph,
Josephus "teaches" rather than "hints" (insinuare is related to the
French "enseigner"). At 6.2, in the citation from II Chronicles 3:4, the
phrase "according to the measurement of the width of the house" has fallen
out. At 14.1 (53), read "carvings" for "etchings."

[10]
Arthur Holder, who will also be participating in this conference, gave
the title of her paper as "The First Quire [of the Codex
Amiatinus] -- Tabernacle/Temple, and the Relationship of the Exegetical
and
Iconographic Material."

[11] The most balanced and
careful discussion of the Codex Amiatinus appeared too late to be
considered by O'Reilly in her essay. Richard Marsden, "The Codex
Amiatinus, a sister pandect and the Bibles at Vivarium," in his The
Text of the Old Testament in Anglo-Saxon England, Cambridge: Cambridge
UP, 1995, 107-139. See also his essay, "Job in His Place: The Ezra
Miniature in the Codex Amiatinus," Scriptorium 49 (1995):3-15. Pl.
6 in this volume has an excellent reproduction of the "Ezra" page, and is
much easier of access than the illustration in the reproduction of the
Lindisfarne Gospels (1959-60), II, pl. 21.